Hi,
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 4:43 PM, Matthew Brett <matthew.brett@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>> On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Travis Oliphant <travis@continuum.io> wrote:
>>>>>>>> When we selected the name NumFOCUS just a few weeks ago, we created the list
>>>> for numfocus and then I signed everyone up for that list who was on the
>>>> other one. I apologize if anyone felt left out. That is not my
>>>> intention.
>>>>>> My point is that there are two ways go to about this process, one is
>>> open and the other is closed. In the open version, someone proposes
>>> such a group to the mailing lists. They ask for expressions of
>>> interest. The discussion might then move to another mailing list that
>>> is publicly known and widely advertised. Members of the board are
>>> proposed in public. There might be some sort of formal or informal
>>> voting process. The reason to prefer this to the more informal
>>> private negotiations is that a) the community feels a greater
>>> ownership and control of the process and b) it is much harder to
>>> weaken or subvert an organization that explicitly does all its
>>> business in public.
>>>> Your points are well taken. However, my point is that this has been discussed on an open mailing list. Things weren't *as* open as they could have been, perhaps, in terms of board selection. But, there was opportunity for people to provide input.
>> I am on the numpy, scipy, matplotlib, ipython and cython mailing
> lists. Jarrod and Fernando are friends of mine. I've been obviously
> concerned about numpy governance for some time. I didn't know about
> this mailing list, had only a vague idea that some sort of foundation
> was being proposed and I had no idea at all that you'd selected a
> board. Would you say that was closer to 'open' or closer to 'closed'?
By the way - I want to be clear - I am not suggesting that I should
have been one of the people involved in these discussions. If you
were choosing a small number of people to discuss this with, one of
them should not be me. I am saying that, if I didn't know, it's
reasonable to assume that very few people knew, who weren't being
explicitly told, and that this means that the process was,
effectively, closed.
See you,
Matthew